The Irony of Apathy

A few days ago, I found myself recommending to a friend of mine that he try to be a little more apathetic. That is to say, to care less about everything. This makes sense to a degree. You cannot care as much as you can about everything you come across and expect to come out emotionally whole. I accused myself of being as apathetic as I humanly could. However, upon further reflection, I find this to be untrue.

I accused myself of being so uncaring mostly on the grounds of my limited social life. However, it is quite the opposite. You see, it makes more sense that people with a larger social life would actually be the more apathetic ones. They would have a larger selection of friends to go through, and they would naturally care less about each friend individually. And due to the fact that the percentage difference would be negligible, the more friends you have, the less it hurts when you loose one. The opposite is true for someone with, say, 3-4 real friendships.

So, it comes down to a matter of perspective. If you are viewing yourself, your caring level is directly correlated to the number of friends you have. However, if you are observing someone else, then the relationship is inversely correlated. And that explains my original fault of judgement.

Au Contraire, Socrates

Socrates was an "armchair man". That is to say, he believed in sitting down and contemplating, thinking everything over, before taking any action. If action was to be taken at all. His demeanor and the background of his teachings can be summed up as just think, think, think. Contemplate, and you will know. Look deep inside yourself, and you will see. Ask questions to yourself, and with time, you will find the answer within. But you know what, Socrates?

I disagree.

Of course, Socrates's position can be understandable considering the time period he grew up in. He was born into Athens, in Ancient Greece, which was a city of action and reaction. The Athenians even considered a man who did not actively participate in politics to be "useless". To say, if you did not have a strong opinion, or you did not act on it, your name was mud. And so to Socrates, who loved begin the rebel, sitting down and just contemplating for a bit was luxurious and a finger to the establishment. And for his spirit, I admire him.

But I cannot believe that I can formulate my own conclusions without going out and consciously testing them. I need to gather information, and then formulate a hypothesis. "Data, data, data, I cannot make bricks without clay." And I often find myself wrong when I try Socratic method. But that is not Socrates's fault. After all, he was elderly, late sixties, and he had a large knowledge base to draw upon. I, on the other hand, do not have the large data sets that come with old age. So while Socrates's method may have worked for him...

It just doesn't work for me. At least, not yet.

Absolutely Outrageous!

People have a tendency to organize themselves into groups. It's natural human sociology. It's most often seen today in national identities, consumer choices, and arguably most importantly, religion. But things can get out of hand. And now I am very upset at the recent event that have transpired at Springs Charter School.

You see, Springs Charter School has been called out many times by many different people because of their pulling of certain books from their shelves. They took down Corrie ten Boom's The Hiding Place because it quoted passages from the bible. This is the result of a larger request to pull down all books that are "Christian books, books by Christian authors, and books from Christian publishers."

This is outrageous.

But what most people don't realize is that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

As a student of Springs Charter School (oh yes, I am a student there), the first I heard about this was not from the bookstore, but from my teacher. Who was fired. For his religious beliefs. For being christian.

Let me tell you the whole thing.

My teacher, Mr. Jonston, was my science teacher, and a good one at that. He was kind, patient and tolerant. He helped everyone whenever they asked for it, and is (now was) one of the best teachers anyone could ask for. But he was a christian science teacher. He told us that he was christian. He told us that he believed that evolution had some holes in it. And it does. And knowing that there are holes in scientific theory helps us practice good science in questioning everything. And yet he was fired for it.

Myself and virtually all of his students are absolutely shocked over this. We didn't even have a chance to say goodbye to him before they ripped him from his employment. We're going to create a petition and present it to the school. Because I will not sit here and watch an innocent man loose his job over his religious beliefs!

I hope to get the word spread as far as I can about this. Something needs to be done. I hope to get the school to offer Mr. Jonston back his teaching position. And hopefully, with enough people, we'll be able to do just that.

What makes a friend?

First off, in order to define what makes a good friend, we must first look at what defines friendship. Friendship is, of course, subjective, and therefore hard to explain. What defines a friend for one person may not be true for another. It doesn't help that frienship is an abstract, human concept, built to service a broad range of human social relationships. What makes a friend even differs from culture to culture, from past to present. For example, Aristotle once wrote, " To the query; ''What is a friend?'' his reply was ''A single soul dwelling in two bodies." " Nowadays, people "friend" other people on social media, like their bosses or teaches. Not because they feel as if they are "a single soul dwelling in two bodies", but because they feel obligated. But that is a discussion for another time.

Back to the question, what makes a good friend? Many poeple try to rate freinds based on certain attributes, like loyalty, or similarity to oneself. But, as I said, friendship is subjective, and so the answer to the question must be similarly flexible. And since friendship is mutual, it needs to go both ways. What is the common denominator? What is a friend?

It's someone you trust. Friendship is built upon trust. You're not friends with someone you don't trust. And it is no coincidence that people who trust more easily have a better time at making friends. Friends are the people you trust, and who trust you back. Love and affection cannot thrive without the nuturing care of trust. And so, friendship, to me, means trust.

What do we actually fear?

It's a difficult quesition to answer at best. Fear is, after all, subjective, and therefore liable to change from person to person. Everyone seems to have different answeres. Is it suspense? Or how about danger to self? What does everyone's answers have in common? Ah, but in order to find out what we truly fear, first we must examine what it is we do not fear.

For example, imagine a rabbit. Nothing to fear there, right? Just a cuddly ball of fur. Eats vegetables, hops around, nibbles on grass. It's mundane, understood. But then, say you had this rabbit, but with blood around it's mouth. Suddenly, not so care free, are we? What happened to the rabbit? Why is it suddenly frightening? Because of the blood? No, no... think deeper. Before, we could understand it. It was predictable. Now, however, we do not fully understand it. Rabbits don't eat meat, so why is there blood on it's muzzle? How did it get there? Is there something about the rabbit that I should know about? Should I be scared?

And there you have it. You fear something which you do not fully understand, something you do not know how to react to. I gave the rabbit a cloak, a veil behind which to hide, the instant I put blood on it's muzzle. You sensed the deception, but you knew not what I'd hidden behind the drapes. You reacted, you feared, the unkown. And that's what makes us so afraid. We truly fear that which we cannot understand. That's what all our answers have in common, and that's what we will always be afraid of.

A Probablility

People have always been fascinated with the future. Who do I marry? When and how do I die? It's in our nature to speculate and hope towards a certain outcome. "I hope that I win the lottery", or, "I hope it does't rain today." And these are all legitimate sources of hope and speculation. You might win the lottery. I might not rain today. But is there a way to know for sure?

Alber Einstein famously once said; "God does not play dice with the universe." He did not like to
believe that things like weather are random. He believed that you could predict the trajectory of a particle just as you could with a space ship. And many shared his views at the time. But he was, eventually, proven wrong.

If you go down small enough, to a quantum level, you begin to encounter odd things. Quantum tunneling and the likes. Things that are an example of Non-Zero Probability. In other words, things having a Non-Zero Probability of happening become more probable, and therefore easier to observe. This Non-Zero Probability shows the fundamental, probabilistic nature of the universe and reality itself. So there is a Non-Zero Probability of anything happening. The moon falling out of the sky. Things that seem impossible, but by the laws of quantum mechanics, aren't.

This fascinates me to no end. But let's assume, just for a second, that there was no Non-Zero Probability. That Quantum mechanics wasn't probabilistic. That means that you could accurately and absolutely predict a particle's interaction with all other particles. So, if we take a leaf out of Laplace's book, he said:

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
       —Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities

In other words, if you were to be able to know the exact placement of every particle in the universe and it's juxtaposition to every other particle, then you could predict how all those particles would interact, and therefore know where all the other particles would be the next second. You could also deduct where the particles had been a second ago. This means that you could, in essence, predict the future. You would be able to know about all the interactions of all the particles because you know everything from an instant in the history of the universe. And with this power of predicting the future you would be able to predict people's future's as well, because, after all, we are part of the universe. And if we follow this path to the logical conclusion, then that means that you are predictable, down to an atomic scale.

And that means that free will is merely an illusion. When Einstein rejected randomness, he rejected the idea of a free human being. Luckily for you and me, he was wrong in this one thing. So we can all be grateful for the universe and it's essential randomness. It makes us fully, truly, human.

A Deep Narcism

Human beings are amazing in the ability to imagine, express, process, and emphasize with different realities, usually created by different human beings. Be the format in literature, in painting, in film, or merely an idea in your head. Regardless, we are able to use our brains to create beautiful and complex fictional worlds.

But we're not so good at some things. I mean, can you imagine a new color? In any case, one that particularly peeves me is the whole "aliens" genera of fiction. The most obvious pitfall is when you see aliens that are humanoid or resemble anything living on our own world. I mean, who says that bipedalism (or quadrupedalism) is the best or only way to transport oneself in traditional space over solid terrain? And the thought that all living organisms keep both their central nervous system and most of their major sensory organs on a venerable, extended appendage? Preposterous!

Not to mention that they're carbon based, water necessitating, solid-food consuming creatures. Or that they see in "visible" light. Or that they smell. They tolerate the same approximate temperature range. And goodness knows what else! Some people have gotten far even by my standards, yes, but the fact that most of our media seems dependent on the idea that life that evolved isolated from our biogenetic influence somehow ended up similar to ours shows a deep seated, and often unnoticed, narcism.

Now, in a way, our inability as a people to conceive of something truly and unspeakably new makes the moment when we view another complex organism all the more awe inspiring! The chemistry that it creates, the biology of it as a whole would be mind-blowinly fascinating merely due to the fact that we could not have conceived of it unless we where to actually be beholden to it. And it guarantees that when, if, we do meet life on an exoplanet, humanity as a whole will be amazed. As Shakespeare once said; "There is more on heaven and earth, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."

Mistakes Abound

I get very depressed and unresponsive every time I think about the fact that I seem to regret pretty much everything I've said and done. Why did I say that? Why didn't I do that? So on and so forth. And I doubt I'm alone in this. We grimace at the memory of what we used to be, how silly, how stupid we were. We see ourselves in hindsight and cringe at it. Remembering how you handled something with fondness is like finding money stuck in a library book. Unexpected and pleasantly surprising.

And this is paradoxical. The fact that we see our mistakes means that we can learn form them, which in turn means that we are evolving and refining ourselves. That thought alone should be enough to counteract the regret of your actions, or lack thereof. But instead we're cursed to linger on and exaggerate the gaffes of or past selves.

Evolutionarily speaking, it does makes sense. Those who remember their missteps more acutely than others are less inclined to make the same mistake twice, which, in the wild, can be lethal. Human nature has evolved in order to cause us to make as few mistakes as possible, particularly social. But sometimes it goes too far, and the bitterness over your past is enough to drive anyone mad.

And thinking along those lines, anyone who says your mistakes don't define you, well, think about it more carefully. Your choices define you, do they not? So, mistakes are a slice of that pie. You can't just ignore something that influences your thought processes so profoundly, both logically and emotionally, merely because you don't like your self-criticism.

But I suppose the best thing we can do is to just learn from our oversights and make the best of it. Just because you don't like it or agree with it doesn't mean that you can just ignore your past, lest your future pay.

Transcending Moral Polarity

I have a moral issue with the terms "good" and "bad", because not only are they so ambiguous as to be less than helpful, but also the idea that something is either good or bad is inherently flawed. To think that something is evil merely for the sake of being evil is narrow minded and just wrong. And there's the other side of the coin. No one, and nothing, is ever truly good.

So, rather than blunder our way through the day bluntly firing off crudely fashioned statements containing or implying inherent moral polarity, we must use more appropriate adjectives. Not only does this fix the fact of assuming that something is good or bad, but it makes it a more accurate statement, and, more importantly, it puts emotion into your sentence. For example, if you where to say; "You looked good today.", how is the person receiving the compliment sure that it is, in fact, a compliment? People through out the words "good" and "bad" all the time like there's no tomorrow. But if you where to say; "You looked fabulous today.", they automatically understand that you're being sincere (as long as you adopt the right tone of voice), because now you've taken the time to select a specific word from your vocabulary for the sole purpose of complimenting another person, and that makes them feel good.

Of course, there are drawbacks. If you're texting, and you use a positive adjective to compliment another person, you have no control over how it's read. That person can read it as sincere or sarcastic, or any shade in between, and there is very little you can do to change it. If you type; "You looked fabulous today.", fabulous can be inflected to either actually mean fabulous, or to be derogatory and detrimental. Only one of the reasons I dislike communicating through text (although, the advantages pretty much break even with the disadvantages).

So, you should use words other than "good" or "bad". But everything depends on context. One slip of the tone, and you can find yourself being extremely degrading rather than helpfully uplifting.

The Question of Civilization

We tend to take civilization for granted. I don't mean that we don't appreciate all the benefits (while we certainly do plenty of that), I mean we automatically think that civilization is the only option. It certainly doesn't help that the lines of what is civilization and what isn't are blurred to such a degree that it's almost controversial. In any case, we automatically assume that civilization is advanced, it's progress. To revert to any former human organization is to regress to banging rocks together. Right?

Well, civilization certainly seem to have it's benefits. The surplus of food it generates through agriculture allows specialists dedicated to certain tasks like producing objects designed to make our lives easier. It's because of this that I can choose not to devote my life to foraging for food or hunting animals. I can become a musician or a politician or an architect. All thanks to civilization.

But would living a nomadic lifestyle be so horrible? You live in tight nit community where everybody pulls their own weight. You participate in group activities live picking fruit or hunting game. You spend your days outside, free of the pressures of a large, dense, interconnected society that usually demands that you behave a certain way in order to succeed. You know everybody, everybody knows you, and you share a special familial bond with everyone in your group. Of course, there are societies that sort of meander between these two opposites, like herders or traders along the silk road. But that's beside the point. The question is, which is superior?

Well, you might think civilization, because it's the predominant order of people today. It allows us to create technologies that further or advancement as sentiment beings and as a species as a whole. After all, every time an advanced, organized civilization has collided with any hunter-gatherer peoples, the technologically superior specialists, created by surplus of food from farms, almost always come out vitreous in war or conflict.

But prowess on the battlefield isn't the only measure of the success of humanity's attempt to better
itself. There's categories like overall health, including the prevalence of disease and malnutrition, as well as overall things like suicide and homicide rates. In both of these, hunter-gatherer clearly comes out on top.

So, the debate goes on. whether a complex, advanced, rigidly structural society is superior to a free, nomadic lifestyle or not is a matter of opinion. Most likely, the answer for humanity (like many other solutions involving the masses) lies somewhere in the middle.

The Abnormality of Normality

Statistics lie. Though, not in a traditional sense. The data they present is correct (most of the time), but the world view it gives us is fundamentally skewed. I mean, say that there was a rare genetic mutation that caused people to become temporarily paralyzed after they are startled, and it only affected 0.01% of the population. You could say; "Well then, that does seem very unlikely. I don't think I'll worry about it too much. After all, I doesn't affect alot of people." But remember this: 0.01% of Earth's population is still seven-hundred thousand people worldwide. Now, all of the sudden, it seems like a much bigger number. But it's still the same data, merely presented in a different format.

Another gross misrepresentation of humanity's obsession with percentages is what is "normal". What is a normal person? Well let's see. If we assume they live in the US (just to make things easier), then they would have to be: white, male, straight,  ~35 and a half years old, have brown hair, brown eyes, be ~5' 9", weigh 170 lbs., have had an average college GPA of 2.93, have an income of ~$81,400, be married, have 2-3 kids, and odds are they're also a salesperson for a living. But just how many people you know fit this neat little box? And that's not even factoring in things like religion, pets, household space, diet, hobbies and interests... et cetera, et cetera. So, why do some people have such a compulsion to be "normal", when there really is no such thing? Of course, even there, the normal they're shooting for isn't even statistically correct, but that's a discussion for another time. People have this animal urge to squeeze themselves into a mold that others have sculpted for them, in order to be accepted into a group. Their dedication to this idea is quite impressive, if pitiful to watch.

However, there are exceptions that make the rule. People out there that don't give a fig about what society thinks, or what standards it sets. I applaud them. But interestingly, their numbers seem to be growing. Where people used to squeeze and stretch themselves onto a template in order to present themselves to a social group, they now revel in their uniqueness and dance in the glory of their own imperfections and humanity. People accentuate their differences from each other and from there create and find groups that match their interests, not societies. This can be attributed to the large human population and the scramble for jobs in the recession. People go out of their way to separate themselves from the masses, to distinguish themselves amongst their peers. And you need to do this, it's a necessity, a requirement in order to catch and hold someones attention long enough that they hire or promote you. But it's a delicate balance. Too uniform, you'll never succeed. Too different, and you'll end up alienating yourself from society completely. While that may sound okay, enjoyable even, it's not desirable if you seek advancement. After all, we still cling to our primeval need for order and uniformity. Who would hire a freak?

So I suppose, in a sense, that the fact that we still need to alter ourselves to our social environment still lingers, like a disease, like the parasite it is. Society's interaction with individuals is a parasitic relationship. Unfortunately for us right now, it's also a necessary relationship.

A Short Enquiry on Opinions

It is quite an interesting facet of human nature. After all, you don't see elephant seal squabbling over whether or not tax rates should be increased, and on whom, but then elephant seals don't tax other seals mostly because they don't have the mathematical capabilities to accurately deduct a certain percentage or some sort from other seals, but I digress.

Tricky thing is, if you think about it, animals also have opinions. I mean, they probably are mostly concerning the amount of food they are fed every day, but still. They don't hold lengthly debates over abstract concepts like laws and epistemology. Humans, in that area (as far as I can tell) are unique. And I am grateful that we have been endowed with the ability of higher mental capabilities. But it does cause alot of problems. Just look at politics.

Politics can be said to be the offspring of differences in opinions, at least in an elected government. Of course, there are people who scorn politics so much, the term politician can even be used as an insult. Politics is a strange mix of our basic need to have a sort of pecking order in society, and our newer instinct to organize things in order to make life easier. The form of government through which politics manifests itself depends largely on society and it's current principles and beliefs. Be it in the form of a monarchy, who rules by divine right, or a representative democracy, indirectly elected by the people.

The problem with politics is that it is, in its own way, mandatory. You have to participate in politics out of necessity. As Plato so aptly put it; "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up governed by your inferiors." Now, it should be noted that Plato could be something of   a snob at times, but his point is valid nonetheless. You refuse to engage in government? Fine, but your opinion will not be acknowledged or taken into account. And so we are drawn into this necessary evil, this child of human nature, as it expands itself to fit the needs of it's self expansion.

And as it grows, more and more does it encroach on our lives. There are riots in the streets over laws and policies. Not to mention the dangerous mix of some people having strong opinions but a weak basic courtesy towards other schools of thought. Truth be told, they seem to be the root of most of the problems facing some places. I mean, there are people who are going to disagree with you. The best course of action is taking a deep breath and calmly debate them. Screaming and yelling won't do you any good. And in any case, its good to have some different opinions around you. I mean, if everyone I know agrees with me, then I don't know enough people. How do you expect to change and grow without an environment to react to? I'm not saying that you have to disagree with them, but at least acknowledge that they think that their right, and you're wrong, and a reaction of violence will only deepen their opinion about your point of view.So just take a deep breath, and for the time being, try not to rage to the other person how incredibly stupid they are for not agreeing to every facet of your philosophy.

Education, the devil's in the details.

Public education, in all it's present glory, like any oner human creation, is flawed. But the fact that it so obviously, so deplorably flawed is what is depressing. Thirty years ago, kids in school where told a story. A story where if you when to school, and you got a college degree, then you would get a decent job. And now look what's happening. College people dropping out fresh from the campus life, bent double with the debt which they carry, and not even the good chance of finding a suitable job. Now, not all of this blame is to be put onto the system, although most of it should be. The small portion of error not belonging to the system is attributable to society, and it's perceptions on jobs. Nobody wants to be a fast food server or a farm worker. So even when the opportunities arise, we decline such an offer mostly out of pride and what society finds acceptable for a college graduate to seek employment. But tackling that would be trying to cure the symptoms.

The problem lies in the fact that public education was conceived, planned and structured around the intellectual ideas of the Enlightenment and the economic format of the Industrial Age. And so now even a traditional school is built around the idea of a factory. Bells regulating time, lockers, the works. But it's not the only outcome. We also arrange kids in batches of age, as if the most relevant thing pertaining to education that kids have in common is when they where born. A horrible miscalculation. Not to mention the gross defilement of any Arts programs in public schools. As if the only thing kids need to be happy is to have textbooks worth of facts on science and math and english crammed down their throats.

Oh, but wait, there's more! You need to sit still, pay attention. Answer these questions using the proper methods. There is only one right way to do it, and the answer is in the back of the book. And no collaboration. Let me repeat that; "NO COLLABORATION." Aren't schools supposed to teach you useful, real-world knowledge? And if that is true (or I'm merely riding on a idealist delusion), then shouldn't we be able to work in groups on almost everything? You're not going to be working alone all the time when you're in the real work force. Trying to evaluate students differently is like trying to determine the he health of the entire hive from just one bee.

Now, there are exceptions. There are enough people who fit into this mold, who are "smarter", to keep the delusion going. If that kid could make it so far, then everybody can make it that far, and anyone who does't excel in the same field, at the same pace, with the same proficiency is simply lazy. You could waste artistic genius simply because they weren't exemplary in the sciences. At that point, who cares? Artistic genius! But no, sit down, pick up your pencil, and neatly bubble in and answer, and no talking.

A Paradox of Perspective

It is quite odd, if you think about it. How unimportant and how significant we are. I mean, speaking objectively, we really aren't that much of a difference. Just dust specks floating on a dust speck in the middle of a tiny patch of inestimably small dust specks. Quite depressing. And yet, if we were to zoom in a bit, we would see a myriad of changes; small ones making big ones, big ones making small ones. Big or small, important or unimportant, for better or for worse. Going on all the time, and every little twitch counts.

A paradox of perspective, really. It's particularly scary for people who are just starting off their lives, both armed with and weighed down with the knowledge that every little decision will make a huge impact on their futures, and yet, still be unable to make any real, deliberate change on a social level. What should I major in in college? What should I focus on in high school? What internship should I go for? What do I want to do with my life? It makes me want to crawl up into a fetal position every time I think about it.

And we are forced to make these sort of life changing decisions so early on not only due to the capitalist mindset of the workforce, but also by the sheer amount of humanity pressing in on all sides, shoving for the best job, the best house, the best medical care, the best retirement... You make the tiniest slip, the smallest of mistakes, and suddenly there are a dozen more likely candidates fighting over your position. It's like trying to balance on the edge of a knife, all the while having people take potshots at you. The pressure is probably the reason for the recent pandemic of depression.

I suppose there is only one way to stay sane. You can block it out. Push it down. Lock up all your insecurities an present to the world an iron facade. But that's only a temporary solution. Sooner or later, the pressure get too much, and *pop*. And all the while you have that darker corner of your mind whispering in your ear;  You don't really matter, you never will...

An Epiphany on Loneliness

The other night, I was watching a movie called "The Outsiders" (which is basically a film on the class differences in the late 1950s), and at one point, the main character's two best friends are dead. And so I thought, "He must be feeling really lonely right now. All those happy memories that he and his friends share, no longer being able to talk to someone who was there with him, remembering too." And then it hit me. I realized I had a half-definition for loneliness. It's the inability to confirm your reality with another intelligent human being.

Now, that definition doesn't cover the entire cause and feeling of loneliness, but it's a start towards that. You see, according to David Hume, a Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, all reality is simply a

David Hume

series of sensory inputs colliding with your consciousness in an alternate dimension, and therefore nothing is really real. In his words: "To hate, to love, to think, to feel, to see; all this is nothing but to perceive. What a particular privilege has this little agitation of the brain which we call thought." Thing is, there is no way that I know of to prove or disprove this theory. And not being able to either confirm or deny such a fundamental question tends to upset my perception of reality. And whenever I start to question reality, I tend to get lonelier than usual.

No mean feat, considering. But anyway, questioning that sort of basic human assumption leads us to want to find an answer to the said question. It's within human nature. And when we are unable to even definitively say that anything physical is actually as we experience it, it leads us to question even the existence of people around us, and ultimately humanity as a whole. And that, in my experience, tends to distance ourselves from any sort of social interaction, if not physically, then at least emotionally. And that feels like loneliness to me.

A Humbling Point of View

Recently, I stumbled upon a grading system for civilizations, know as the Kardashev scale. The Kardashev scale is a highly theoretical way of measuring a civilization's advancement, both technologically and expansively, and is useful for putting the recent leaps that humanity has made into a cosmic perspective.

Overall, there are 6 official types of civilizations, and they range from Type 0 to Type 5. Type 0 is
when the civilization in question extracts it's energy and resources from crude organic based sources, and is capable of orbital flight. Natural disasters such as tsunamis and hurricanes, as well as self-created mass genocide are all risks to the Type 0 civilization. At Type 1, the civilization is still planetary, but now gets it's energy from sources such as fusion reactors and other high-density energy sources. But they must also be capable of interstellar flight travel, interstellar communication, planetary engineering, world government, and megascale engineering. Type 1 is still prone to extinction, but it is now mostly limited to supernovas or black holes. Type 2 goes even further, as a multi-system civilization, and is now also capable of terraforming and stellar engineering. Type 2 is now theoretically immune form extinction from natural phenomena, as well as some of the artificial genocides. Type 3 is a galactic empire, and is now also able to travel via wormholes. Type 4 has the ability to colonize numerous galaxies, and is effectively immortal, as well as mastering time warping and theoretical time travel. Type 5 dominate the universe, and are supposedly able to create custom, parallel universes or alternate time branches.

So, yeah. We're still a Type 0 culture, but that is changing. We have met all criteria for a Type 0 civilization, and are beginning to try our hand at becoming a Type 1. I mean, look around! We're sending rovers to Mars and they're sending data back. We've launched equipment to the farthest reaches of the solar system. And yet, we still have a long way to go. We still rely heavily on organic sources of energy such as oil and coal. Not to mention our mindset and our culture. We have yet to see planetary government, although the UN is a step in that direction. And as for interstellar travel, well... we have yet to send a man to Mars, but that future isn't far off. I just hope I live to see it.

But we have to remember, this scale is not an outline of how humanity will progress. We will see things that deviate, or the whole thing could be wrong. We don't know. I mean, if you where to ask the most learned person a thousand years ago to come up with such a scale, I don't doubt that we would scoff at it in distain as we smile smugly in our own superior knowledge of events to come for humanity. People have been erroneous to a point of being ludicrous before, and for all we know, we could be too.

Ethics, where art thou?

Shakespeare once said; "There is nothing that is good or bad, but thinking that makes it so." And there really is no better way to put it. Good and bad are merely perceptions, and our perceptions are influenced by our heritage, our religious beliefs, our experiences, our hopes, our doubts...

So, really, if you where to mold people differently, they could have completely opposing opinions on good and bad. It happens all the time. Politics is the epicenter of that debate over what is good and what is bad. So, people never do anything they believe to be the worst decision. They always pick the best option available to them. Now, I'm not saying that people always pick the right option, or the option that benefits the most people, but they do turn down the road that they believe will allow them to get to their personal goals. Tolkien knew this when he wrote his famous Lord of the Rings books. There is no character, besides Sauron, who is truly evil. They always have some conflict with the protagonists not because their sole purpose is to get in the way, but because their goals don't align with the goals of the "good" guys.

But it is hard, to understand people and their decisions. It takes a considerable amount of understanding to really grasp someone's motives. But understanding breeds empathy, and empathy breeds sympathy. And so, in order to really, truly, unquestionably understand someone, you have to first love them as they love themselves.

The Shackles of Categorization

There are many types of people whom I find insufferable. People who lack any amount of empathy. People who automatically judge other people without getting to know them. People who say you owe them because they are your "friend". But even though I would never actively or consciously seek out their company, it is still my duty as a human being to interact with them, at least passively, and allow them a chance to better themselves through real human interaction (I'm not saying that people who interact with me always come out better for it, that's way to narcissistic for even me, but that social interaction is always a chance to pull yourself up the ladder of your life).


And people who just brush off these people who they deem "strange", "weird", or "undesirable" are merely humans in a biological sense, and they never actually look past themselves to help that girl who sat next to them in Biology for a whole semester and a half until one day she didn't come back and now she's gone and they could have helped her but they didn't. And who defines what is strange anyway? I think we can all agree that categorizing people never works. I mean, come on. You can't slap a generic label and neatly place everyone into nice little categories. That's just a few steps away from the feudal system, and there was only massive cultural, economical, political and scientific oppression for about a thousand years. And we continue to do it. Look around. Labels like "Democrat"and "Republican", "rich"and "poor", "smart" and "dumb" are prolific, and immensely destructive to any cross-class social bonding.
            

One of the major reasons that we continue to shackle ourselves to the raging machine of society is because stereotyping is such an affective marketing tool. I'm not saying that it's entirely the company's fault. It's ours too, for standing, oblivious to the walls being built and gaps being made between human beings. It's gone a little too far.

Now, I'm not calling for total anarchy. I'm not a pot-smoking 70s hippie holding up a peace sign. A little class distinction is ok. It allows us to think subjectively, and therefore to focus on the bigger picture. But to allow it to overcome us to the point where Hollywood uses class separation as one of the key elements in it's movies is a bit much. A proper balance should be found, met, and sustained. Where that balance is is for each generation to decide. They should just know what to look for first.

A Colorful Monochrome

Sometimes I think there is something genuinely wrong with me. My world view sometimes fluctuates so rapidly, and over such little things, that it scares me. I go from seeing the world in a depressing black and white to blindingly colorful and bright with hope so much that it hurts. And then back aging. Several times a day. It's exhausting.

And the affect this has in not just making me appreciate when I am truly happy, but it also distances me away from people. I'll be laughing along with them, making small talk and such, when all of the sudden, something someone says or does reminds me of all those dark corners of my mind. I'll trail off in mid-sentence and I won't be able to look away from the wall as I try to drag myself out of the deep, dark, suffocating pit in my soul. Why this happens, you ask? I don't know. I try to continue the conversation as if nothing happens, but my voice sounds false to even myself, my smile feels as plastic as rubber tires. All the while I'm still reeling form the sudden reminder of how lonely I really am.

I realize that now. That pit is loneliness. I once tried to think of someone I was truly open with. To my twisted amusement, I couldn't think of anyone. Certainly there are people who think they know me, maybe even understand me, but they don't realize that all they see is side of me I choose to present to them.

And then I remember how petty my problems seem. I'm a healthy white male middle class american who's never really been deprived of a meal or had to face any real loss. That makes my loneliness seem like a child whining for candy compared to the people who worry whether or not they will get a good meal and a safe place too sleep. Knowing his gives me perspective. And perspective is the thin rope that I desperately grasp in order to keep me from falling into the reach of that monster in my mind.

Descartes vs. Hume

Recently, I found myself, once again, wasting time on the internet. And one of my favorite pastimes is to watch youtube videos made by people like Vihart and John and Hank Green and Michael Stevens and Derek Muller and so on. And in doing so I occasionally find other channels of similar ideas and subject matter. I stumbled across two videos, each discussing the epistemological views of Descartes and Hume. The opposing forces struggling for supremacy is made funny by the fact that their views on epistemology are so similar, but they each oppose the other so directly it makes the image of Hume and Descartes arguing humorous.

Who where they? Rene Descartes is famous for spreading the use of the Cartesian plane, and also liked to dabble in philosophy in addition to mathematics. He bagan to wonder (probably during his midlife crisis); "How do we know anything?" All our knowledge seems to be based on previous knowledge. Because you couldn't, like, figure out the Pythagorean theorem without first knowing what a right triangle is and so on. So he did a thought experiment where he cleared his table of knowledge. He pretended that he knew absolutely nothing. And then he tried to find the fundamental facts of existence by putting things back onto his table of knowledge. He tried and failed with many pieces of information, but the only thing he could get back onto the able was:

"I think, therefore I am."

Meaning that you are experiencing things, and therefore you must be real. Everything else's existence is questionable at best.

Hume, on the other hand, liked to believe that all our experience was built on sensory inputs, and that everything is merely a string of sensory inputs and nothing is really real. Like we're in the Matrix or something.

So Hume's argument was that nothing was real, not even yourself. But Descartes is all like; "Yeah, nothings real, but I am experiencing these things, so therefore I must be real." And Hume's all like; "Nope! Sorry, you don't exist either, at least not on this plane of reality."

And this is funny because while they arrived at similar conclusions, their own conclusions were fundamentally opposed to each other by design. And thinking about two long-dead European philosophers bickering on whether or not they really exist while the rest of us are just like; "I just want the next Downton Abbey episode to air. I really don't care about epistemological quandaries pertaining to the existence of consciousness."

The AI Debate

With technology such as Siri and miniature unmanned areal vehicles with self-adjusting capabilities on the rise, a fairly difficult question is becoming more and more prevalent. While all of these programs are undoubtedly smart and they do what they where meant to do well, but do they count as AI? For that matter, what would be true AI?

TED is trying to answer this, by giving a challenge to engineers worldwide. To build and program a robot capable of delivering a TED talk. This project is still in it's infancy, and TED is still using polls to set the rules for what constitutes, in the public's mind, as AI. After all, you can always program something to give  pre-written speech, but that wouldn't be considered AI. So just giving a speech and walking off stage, in my mind at least, does't cut it.

What would be cool is to program a robot to preform in a debate. Instead of regurgitating information, the program would have to adapt and counter an actual, live human being in a verbal spar. It doesn't have to win, even humans have to loose debates, but it should at least put up enough adaptability to be an actual threat to it's opponent's point of view.

But even that has limits. That AI would be good for it's intended purpose, but what then? You couldn't stick the robot in, say, a rescue mission. That's not what it's built for. So, what are we supposed to do?

Well, the smartest and most complex thing we humans know about is our own brain. If we where to scan our brains, every minute detail, every neuron and synapse, and where to translate that into binary, and run THAT as a program, then that, in my opinion, would be as complex as we could conceivably make AI.

The perils of being an absolutionist.

People generally think in very black-and-white terms, even when they try not to. I catch myself doing it all the time. That's a tree and thats a dog.  If I get shot in the head I die. Just looking around, you'd be surprised what you take for granted. Most of us think that way because it's easier to solve complex problems when you're not worrying about the littler stuff. That's just evolution. But it's fun to ponder these thing once in a while.

For example, when does someone die? When they are declared dead by a doctor? When their heart stops? When their brain stops functioning correctly? When they stop breathing? Or somewhere in between all these points and more?

In chemistry, this sort of thing used to bother me all the time when you're measuring something. Ideally, all our measurements would contain the same amount of representative particles, ad guessing or error. But we are human, after all, and even if we were to measure out everything drop by drop, there would still be a difference between drops because of the smallness of water molecules. Of course, it is a consolation that any error would be so minute that it wouldn't matter to our perception, but it still bugs me like an itch at the back of my mind.

Here's another one for you. Are you really a human being? Merryman-Webster defines it as: "a person". The Oxford dictionary is a little more in depth.

"A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

Of course, even this leaves loopholes. What about someone who is comatose? Are they not people too? Or what the other way around? If we were to encounter another sentiment alien race in the future who met all the biological criteria and even called themselves people, the what are they? And besides, everyone is genetically different in some way. According to Darwin, we will eventually produce children with enough genetic diversity to escape the definition of human, but exactly when will that be?

The details are endless. If you look around, partiality is everywhere. It's only a matter of seeing through the illusion.

A Source of Personal Pride

Ah, Bill Waterson is one of my favorite cartoonists.

Mr. Card, you have a new fan.

Recently, I've been reading Orson Scott Card's first Ender's Game book, and it's one of the best books I've ever read. Not because it's an action-packed adventure book or a fun paperback that will keep you happy for a few hours, but because it's so thought provoking. And I don't mean to sound cheesy when I say that. It's one of those books that allows you to pull your head out of your ass for a bit and look around to see what the world really looks like for a change.

And I'm only a third of the way through the first book, for the love of god. Funniest thing, though, it's written from the point of view of children. Intelligent children who are so dammed clever I'm surprised that in the book there's not more of a fuss made about them (probably has something to do with a basically totalitarian global government), but children non the less. And I suppose that the frankness of children mixed with the maturity of adults brought on by their astute mentalities is what makes this novel's philosophy so compelling.

I haven't read the whole book yet, so I don't know the end moral, but whatever it is, I look forward to the entirety of the series.

My heart almost stood still...

I found this, read it, and it's amazing. Hellen Keller was both blind and deaf when she wrote this letter. She "heard" a song through feeling the vibrations on the stereo, and wrote this beautiful letter of thanks. You can find more here.

93 Seminole Avenue,

Forest Hills, L. I.,

February 2, 1924.

The New York Symphony Orchestra,New York City.
Dear Friends:
I have the joy of being able to tell you that, though deaf and blind, I spent a glorious hour last night listening over the radio to Beethoven's "Ninth Symphony." I do not mean to say that I "heard" the music in the sense that other people heard it; and I do not know whether I can make you understand how it was possible for me to derive pleasure from the symphony. It was a great surprise to myself. I had been reading in my magazine for the blind of the happiness that the radio was bringing to the sightless everywhere. I was delighted to know that the blind had gained a new source of enjoyment; but I did not dream that I could have any part in their joy. Last night, when the family was listening to your wonderful rendering of the immortal symphony someone suggested that I put my hand on the receiver and see if I could get any of the vibrations. He unscrewed the cap, and I lightly touched the sensitive diaphragm. What was my amazement to discover that I could feel, not only the vibrations, but also the impassioned rhythm, the throb and the urge of the music! The intertwined and intermingling vibrations from different instruments enchanted me. I could actually distinguish the cornets, the roll of the drums, deep-toned violas and violins singing in exquisite unison. How the lovely speech of the violins flowed and plowed over the deepest tones of the other instruments! When the human voice leaped up trilling from the surge of harmony, I recognized them instantly as voices. I felt the chorus grow more exultant, more ecstatic, upcurving swift and flame-like, until my heart almost stood still. The women's voices seemed an embodiment of all the angelic voices rushing in a harmonious flood of beautiful and inspiring sound. The great chorus throbbed against my fingers with poignant pause and flow. Then all the instruments and voices together burst forth—an ocean of heavenly vibration—and died away like winds when the atom is spent, ending in a delicate shower of sweet notes.
Of course, this was not "hearing" but I do know that the tones and harmonies conveyed to me moods of great beauty and majesty. I also sensed, or thought I did, the tender sounds of nature that sing into my hand—swaying reeds and winds and the murmur of streams. I have never been so enraptured before by a multitude of tone-vibrations.
As I listened, with darkness and melody, shadow and sound filling all the room, I could not help remembering that the great composer who poured forth such a flood of sweetness into the world was deaf like myself. I marvelled at the power of his quenchless spirit by which out of his pain he wrought such joy for others—and there I sat, feeling with my hand the magnificent symphony which broke like a sea upon the silent shores of his soul and mine.
Let me thank you warmly for all the delight which your beautiful music has brought to my household and to me. I want also to thank Station WEAF for the joy they are broadcasting in the world.
With kindest regards and best wishes, I am,
Sincerely yours, 

HELEN KELLER

Score for Genetic Science

So, recently, scientists created a synthetic yeast chromosome for the first time. That may not sound like a lot, but it's eye-poppingly amazing.

I mean, it took a top scientist 15 years and 40 million dollars to synthesize a procaryote cell chromosome, specifically a bacterial virus. The yeast chromosome was created by undergraduates only a third of the time and a quarter of the funds to make the eukaryotic cell chromosome which makes up yeast, and eukaryotic cell chromosomes are considerably more complicated. But wait, there's more. The synthetic yeast chromosome is fully functioning, living and adapting. It's mind boggling.

Here's the process:

The science is pretty incredible. We're playing God, and it's only a matter of time before we start making genetically synthetic dogs, cats, humans even. Let's just hope that our ethics will still be around by that point.

An Expansion on the Point of Fairness

Reading over my previous post, I realized I have more to say on fairness. Heck, this probably won't be the last time I talk about this... issue.

First of all, the word "fair" is grossly misused. This is mostly due to the fact that people often interchange it with equal. NO. Don't do that. While fair and equal are related, they mean different things, and it would be fatal to confuse them. For example, it would be fair if you flipped a coin for who has the do the dishes that night, but would it be equal? No, and that precisely proves my point. Fairness ≠ Equality.

Second, anyone who says life's fair is either delusional or trying to sell something. Life was not built to be fair. Life was built to be realistic. But, there are exceptions to the rule. My favorite is; "Fairness under the law." You're being promised you will be processed and judged fairly under the law, and in a perfect society, that would be true. Unfortunately, juries have prejudices and judges are only human, so you could argue that even THAT isn't fair.

Human ethics just weren't built to accommodate reality. Such is society.

Individuality is an illusion, says math.

There is a number called the googol, and it's a 1 with a hundred 0's behind it. As you can imagine, it's a fairly large number. But that's not the half of it. There's also the googolplex, which is a 1 with a googol 0's behind it. Mind boggling big. But it does't stop there. Oh, no. There is also the googolplexian, which is a 1 with a googolplex 0's behind it. This number is so large, that if the universe where to span a googolplexian meters across, you would begin to see copies.

Can you imagine? All the atom types, all the possible physical combinations, all the numerous little quirks that make something unique, would be replicated down to the sub-atomic level. It makes me twitch just thinking of the implications. You would see copies of yourself! And if you were to alter something, it would't just stop being a copy, it would just be a copy of something else. Individuality would only be an illusion caused by the incredible distance of the universe.

Mathematics + Physics = Head spinning.

Homework Ethics Fiasco

CNN recently published an article titled; "Is homework making your child sick?" Homework, however much people may not like it, serves many purposes. If you would just put down your bias for a second, you'd be able to see why it has been in use for 30 years.

In the article, they state:

The researchers sought to examine the relationship between homework load and student well-being and engagement, as well as to understand how homework can act as a stressor in students' lives. Their findings were troubling: Research showed that excessive homework is associated with high stress levels, physical health problems and lack of balance in children's lives; 56% of the students in the study cited homework as a primary stressor in their lives.

Ok, 5 hours might be a bit excessive, but a decent dose of homework not only reinforces learning, but also wheedles out the weak. In high school, if you don't do your homework, you grade will drop several letters. Homework is a way for colleges and employers to see who is a good worker and who isn't. And you want to take that away? For what? "Equality"?

Let me tell you something that you, as an adult, should have understood by now: Life. Is. Not. Fair. Period. End of story. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living is a fantasy world. Even if it weren't so, and your goal in life was to make life fair for everybody, ask yourself this; what is fair? If there where  someone who was only 5' 3", and they wanted to play football, it would be unfair to bar them, right? So, what do you do? Tell the other players to "Go easy on him?" But then that's not fair to the other players, is it? How is that feasible?

So, homework is not only a vital learning tool for academics, but also for life skills. For some people it's easier, but what are you gonna do? Give the kids who have a harder time a lighter load? Again, how would that be fair?

Link to the article here: http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/21/health/homework-stress/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

A letter to the Editor

This was a letter written to the editor of the Times from a teenager in Scotland.

Whoever wrote this, I would not mind meeting you. You seem to be an excellent example of a rational human being, and that alone is enough to make you stand out. But there is one thing. You seem to be in an area of the world where your average classmate isn't an insensitive dumbass. Sounds like I'm moving to Scotland. Regardless, those of us with the reasoning to write an article of this caliber has ever right to be, as you put it:

"...treated not as strange creatures from another planet, but as human begins with intelligent though."

As for the experts, they need to revise their conclusion before they throw us all under the blanket statement of "Moods and Meltdowns". Ridiculous.

Jenni Herd, I applaud you.

An Apeirogonal Outlook

I have noticed that people tend to tie a single reality to the world, typically their own bleak view of the society. They make the mistake of thinking that their perspective of reality is the only one that influences their tedious existence. But if you pay close attention to the world, you will notice something that will change you opinion on mankind's mentality.

You see, the universe is not just what you perceive it. There is the Universe, and there is the Observable Universe. No one knows how much of the universe is unobservable, of course, but there are ideas as to samples of the unobservable universe. For example, theory suggests that magnetic fields are actually unobservable particles. Also, the reason that people have made such a big deal out of the Higgs-Boson Particle is because it is a particle that was unobservable, but scientists, for a split second, made it observable. This does not contradict Einstein's Theory of Relativity, because the particle was there all along, it just didn't have mass or any other observable trait.

But anyway, the reason I point this out is because it shows that there is so much more than we can perceive. People, the world isn't one plane of observation. If anything, think of it as a sphere, with an infinite amount of facets and viewpoints. the world isn't just made up of suffering, or of happiness, or of annoying homework form overbearing teachers. It's everything and anything all at once and never at the same time.